Dragons' Den
- TV Series
- 2005–
- 1h
IMDb RATING
6.8/10
2.6K
YOUR RATING
Budding entrepreneurs, inventors, and small businessmen pitch their ideas to five "dragons"--real-life business leaders and millionaires.Budding entrepreneurs, inventors, and small businessmen pitch their ideas to five "dragons"--real-life business leaders and millionaires.Budding entrepreneurs, inventors, and small businessmen pitch their ideas to five "dragons"--real-life business leaders and millionaires.
- Nominated for 4 BAFTA Awards
- 2 wins & 5 nominations total
Browse episodes
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe show is based upon the Japanese series "Money no Tora" (Money Tiger). There are also Canadian and Australian versions of Dragons' Den.
- Quotes
Peter Jones - Dragon: And what are you gonna call it?
Rachel Fiddes: "Blow".
Evan Davis - Presenter: [voiceover] At least she has a brand name which should turn a few heads.
- ConnectionsEdited into Time Trumpet: Episode #1.2 (2006)
Featured review
A group of self-made millionaires sit on a panel with individual stacks of their own money at their disposal. One by one, inventors, small businesses, entrepreneurs and the occasional nut come to the panel to pitch an investment opportunity to them. As the Dragons get their teeth into the potential and the detail of the offer, some are rejected, some are talked down to a compromise deal and some have the dragons fighting over them.
I watched this the other week because the Guardian often has pieces that refer to it, saying how much fun it is. OK so it is another form of reality show but the business element offered the potential that it would be not just another show where a panel tears a strip out of happy-go-lucky members of the public. After watching one or two episodes though I found it vaguely interesting but a lot less entertaining and engaging than I had hoped. In a way it is interesting to see the ideas (good and bad) paraded in front of the panel and occasionally I find the debate and questioning enjoyable. However too often it is tiresome and obvious with the panellists milking their "tough edge" too much and saying more than needs to be said without actually adding much value to the show. It isn't all their fault though because the show also feels very, very padded to try and make it to the hour running time.
So we get recaps of stuff we only saw a few minutes ago and lots of reaction shots from the "Dragons" that clearly are inserted out of context to try and up the drama. Having Evan Davis wittering on doesn't help either; regularly we have a section where one of the Dragons reject a project because the maths don't stand up, only for it to be followed by Davis narrating "the Dragons' have rejected the project because the maths don't stand up" as if somehow the audience zoned out for a second there. I didn't like the way he had to keep calling them "Dragons" either, maybe you get used to it but it just sounded funny to me. The "contestants" are mostly worthy but perhaps not worthy enough to get the cash, some are idiots and these are scattered across the show to keep things lively for the audience who want blood as much as triumph. The panellists are so-so but are too tempted to play to caricature and not be "people". I watched some of the most recent series and it seemed to have be happening more and more with some of them.
Overall then a reasonably interesting reality show but one that is padded and a bit too forced on regular occasions. I can see why some viewers like it but for me it was too little of interest spread thinly over too long a running time.
I watched this the other week because the Guardian often has pieces that refer to it, saying how much fun it is. OK so it is another form of reality show but the business element offered the potential that it would be not just another show where a panel tears a strip out of happy-go-lucky members of the public. After watching one or two episodes though I found it vaguely interesting but a lot less entertaining and engaging than I had hoped. In a way it is interesting to see the ideas (good and bad) paraded in front of the panel and occasionally I find the debate and questioning enjoyable. However too often it is tiresome and obvious with the panellists milking their "tough edge" too much and saying more than needs to be said without actually adding much value to the show. It isn't all their fault though because the show also feels very, very padded to try and make it to the hour running time.
So we get recaps of stuff we only saw a few minutes ago and lots of reaction shots from the "Dragons" that clearly are inserted out of context to try and up the drama. Having Evan Davis wittering on doesn't help either; regularly we have a section where one of the Dragons reject a project because the maths don't stand up, only for it to be followed by Davis narrating "the Dragons' have rejected the project because the maths don't stand up" as if somehow the audience zoned out for a second there. I didn't like the way he had to keep calling them "Dragons" either, maybe you get used to it but it just sounded funny to me. The "contestants" are mostly worthy but perhaps not worthy enough to get the cash, some are idiots and these are scattered across the show to keep things lively for the audience who want blood as much as triumph. The panellists are so-so but are too tempted to play to caricature and not be "people". I watched some of the most recent series and it seemed to have be happening more and more with some of them.
Overall then a reasonably interesting reality show but one that is padded and a bit too forced on regular occasions. I can see why some viewers like it but for me it was too little of interest spread thinly over too long a running time.
- bob the moo
- Feb 23, 2007
- Permalink
- How many seasons does Dragons' Den have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Leijonan luola UK
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content